nhcx_workflow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the description details what content is returned (steps, usecase, roles, actions). It does not mention authentication or potential side effects, but for a read-only workflow display, this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, densely listing the included details. There is no filler or redundancy, making it exceptionally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool shows (steps, usecase per step, roles, allowed actions). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and an empty schema, the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description need not explain parameters, and it doesn't.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('full payer workflow'), and enumerates the included content (steps, usecase per step, roles, allowed actions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nhcx_process_case or nhcx_login.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys that this tool is for viewing workflow information, contrasting with the action-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.